Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
IIRC,
there were a few other Dr’s who asserted such things decades earlier.
Then why did you speak of an object having a "particular form?" If the form is not acquired, then did the object always have it?
Jeepers, spunkets — I feel "cheated": I ask you direct questions, asking to see your evidence, and you refer me to unidentified works "in the neurology and psychiatric lit." Thanks a lot! (Looks to me like you're just ditching my questions. Why? Can't you just describe to me what evidence you've considered that led you to the conclusions you've drawn, even in a general way?)
You seem to suggest that "Objects must transform according to the law of conservation of energy." (I just loved that "must.") Which would seem to indicate you believe form is an emergent property which depends on the assembly of parts; i.e., such assembly is spontaneously produced under the law of the conservation of energy.
But where did the law of the conservation of energy come from? Is it, too, a spontaneously emergent property of the universe? Or it is the other way around: the universe is the manifestation of the law? It seems to me it can't be both. But if the latter, where did the law come from? I.e., what is its cause?
Can you give me an example?
Names and locations of events are contemporaneous. If they are accurate there should be verifiable medical records of the the original diagnosis, and the subsequent finding that the patient underwent a spontaneous remission without any medical treatment.
Simply finding an archaeological record of testimony that someone was "healed" provides no evidence other than that the testimony was recorded.
It also provides no evidence as to what caused them to be "healed."
Expected by whom? Everyone? Or just some idiots? How did they come to expect that? Not from scientific claims, for sure.
By the same token, nobody can claim that medicine can heal or cure anyone.
It's just assumed that the medicine or treatment was effective, but you don't know for sure if it would not have cleared up on its own without treatment.
Expected by whom? Everyone? Or just some idiots? How did they come to expect that? Not from scientific claims, for sure.
Where have you been??? Of course it's by scientific claims. What with science's track record, people wouldn't be trusting science to do so much for them if it was based on simple observation.
Scientists are the ones constantly banging the drum about how science has all the answers for everything. People believe it because that's what they're told, not because of what they've actually observed.
Scientists are the ones responsible for claiming that science can answer everything. The rest of us claim otherwise and are routinely and soundly chastized for being skeptics.
That would be fine with me because I prefer clarity in debate.
Indeed, one who supports the Intelligent Design Hypothesis or Panspermia is not ipso facto anti-Evolution. Neither, by the way, are Creationists. Young Earth Creationists also may have different views of Evolution and indeed, of their own doctrines.
Is that a "fact?" Each one of us is an example of "impossible odds" made possible.
People trust science because science makes working models. Is works! It doesn't need hope, grace, fasting, prayer. It doesn't use the "eeny, meeny, miny, moe" approach to getting things done.
Scientists are the ones constantly banging the drum about how science has all the answers for everything
Which scientists? Please name some.
People believe it because that's what they're told, not because of what they've actually observed
There is "marketing" of scientific products, especially medications, and greed mixed with profit motive lead to unethical claims. That's not the deception of science, but abuse of it.
The rest of us claim otherwise and are routinely and soundly chastized for being skeptics.
No one will say you are going to hell for doubting science. But if you really doubt gravity and decide to test it, you just may discover it's a hell of a way to become convinced otherwise! :)
That depends on the condition, of course. If you are talking middle ear infections, yes. However, medical practice has been manipulated by demanding parents to give antibiotics and law suits resulting when eardrums were actually damaged without treatment.
Medical care is often nonsensical because it is driven by non-medical factors, such as business, profit motives, greed, unethical drug companies, lawyers, and soccer moms, to name just some.
FDA is under obligation to test and certify that a drug is both safe and effective before it is marketed. Obviously it is not a fail-proof system, again for a number of (complex) reasons we can discuss on another thread. The effectiveness of a drug can be demonstrated repeatedly and consistently.
As I said earlier, you are always free to refuse medical care and choose to entrust your and your family's well being entirely in the hands of God. Until someone can demonstrate reliably that prayer is as effective as medicine, I think people will take their 'chance' with standard medical care.
Most often, but not always, the reason for the effectiveness of a drug is known and quite certain. After all, drugs are specifically designed to do what they are supposed to do, to exert effect on target organ or organism, etc. based on what we know about the biomolecular structure and workings of the body. Of course, some drugs are discovered serendipitously and their mechanisms are not well understood.
You seem to make fleeting generalizations in an anecdotal fashion without ever offering as shred of evidence to support them. That's juts plain "labeling."
Haven't you ever used that? IIRC, in context of a hypothetical creator?
Do you trust Climate science?
No, because the complexity of climate and weather is such that our technology doesn't offer the same confidence, consistency and predictability seen in other fields. It is very difficult to reproduce climate conditions in labs, on a small scale and in a "fast-forward" fashion. Mother Nature is in control. :)
For instance, with microorganisms reproducing in a matter of hours, biologists can see and manipulate natural selection through mutation in a "fast forward" fashion and in rather tightly controlled environments. The scientists are in control.
Climate has also become a highly politicized topic. By all accounts, global warming and cooling are "normal" periodic events of various durations. It is really difficult to say if the current warming trend is "normal" or "abnormal," whether it would have happened with or without human causes.
But just in case human causes are a factor, and some scientists claim there is veidence for that, it doesn't hurt to try to control what we can until we can say more greater certainty.
Mother Nature is in control. :)
And who controls Mother Nature?
In one instance you are talking about the existence of evidence that something was present or absent in the case that may have been resposible or contributory. In the the other you are talking about a conclusion drawn from evidence. I wouldn't consider that "the same token".
Well, Zeus, of course/s. Don't you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.